[linux-elitists] RFC 2015 (MIME and PGP) -- RFC status?

Aaron Lehmann aaronl@vitelus.com
Mon Mar 12 15:46:45 PST 2001


On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 02:55:27PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>     I understand  your frustration, but  please note  that RFC2015 is
>     only a proposed standard. This is the first step on the standard
>     track, so it is not  even close  to becoming  an actual  standard.
>     It  may in  fact never become a standard and we do not consider the
>     "Translate= Yes" behaviour a "bug." See RFC2026  for more
>     information, and  specifically section 4.1.1 on proposed standards:

Hmm, I noticed that RFC2015 happens to be by the author of Mutt, which
is the most notable program I know of that prefers PGP-MIME. This sheds
some light for me on why Mutt deprecates plaintext PGP signatures.

Nevertheless, I think PGP-MIME is great and use it when signing mail.
Central "standards" are about as real as DNS in the minds of elitists.

PGP signatures do not belong in the body. MIME works, but I think the
message header would actually be an ideal, out-of-the-way location for
signatures. Signatures tend to be short and are not human-readable, so a
header seems like the perfect place. I don't even think that you would
need to escape characters since signatures need only be "armored" in
base64, which is the most common current practice.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20010312/e0daa7db/attachment.pgp 


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list